PB7 noted that NIPSO could assist public bodies by having a role in agenda setting and prioritising certain issues : “… if you’re trying to do something… you’re trying to get a bit more, you know, of that enhanced, cross-departmental working, it’s helpful to have somebody weigh in behind and say, well actually yes, that could be better. You know, at the same time we’re in a really difficult funding situation so again, if things are, sort of, pushed up the priority order… to make it a bit easier for other services to join up and to co-ordinate and see what the gaps are” (PB7). CSO4 noted that although they had previously had limited engagement with NIPSO, they would be looking at ways to use NIPSO as a resource and ensure systemic issues were “on the radar of the ombudsman” : “there are so many systemic issues that come up, it would be really interesting to be able to give particular cases for consideration, is this something that could be on the radar of the ombudsman, is this a particular challenge…” (CSO4). NIPSO’s power of own initiative investigations PB5 commented on the challenges around getting people to complain and the consequent value of own initiative investigations: “… it’s an unequal system and they lack the ability or the confidence or the knowledge of the system to raise complaints. So, the ability to start those investigations independent of a complaint is a really powerful way to look at it ” (PB5). CSO1 commented in similar terms “I think it would be very important that there is an own initiative... The people who are coming here don’t know the system, they’re too afraid to come forward, they’ll not know about the Ombudsman. So, I think that’s really important” (CSO1). CSO3 said that own initiative investigations were crucial in this area and that there could not be a reliance on individual complaint : “… [they need] not to rely on the complaint process, because a refugee or an asylum seeker, even a migrant who is here, who has everything, work, he doesn’t have time for this. He has other concerns than going to raise complaints, when he’s in an environment where there’s only local people, maybe he’s the only one. How can you win this battle if you don’t have the service Ombudsman behind you?” (CSO3). CSO5 suggested that using own initiative powers in this area would also have benefit in terms enhancing confidence in the system: “Even if they were to tackle just one piece of this… and do an initiative thing on it, I think would do huge things for people’s confidence in the system and that people actually care” (CSO5). PB4 noted, however, that similar concerns with regard to fairness between groups in need should apply to NIPSO and areas it chose to investigate: “I know people that have come via that process are more vulnerable certainly than a lot of others, so maybe it does warrant special consideration, but equally… I’ll be careful what I say here. I’d like to think that they would hold us to account equally for anyone else who’s from here and who has experienced the service that’s not been up to scratch” (PB4).
A number of participants provided suggestions with regard to particular areas that might be suitable for own initiative investigation: • Failure to publish the refugee integration strategy, which might be seen as a breach of legitimate expectation or maladministration (CSO2). • Areas highlighted in the Refugee and Asylum Forum’s Priorities for Action report (CSO2). • Adequacy of provision for children aged 15/16 who cannot get a school place (CSO5). • Failure to use interpreters and a lack of consistency where there is a duty to do so (CSO8). • Failures around safeguarding of children and lack of parity of approach between asylum seeker and refugee children and local children (CSO9). • The quality and regulation of temporary accommodation for homeless people (including asylum seekers and refugees), especially around damp, mould and insect infestation issues (CSO12). 27 • Failures in coordination and planning between public services and the effectiveness of efforts to minimise disruption to services caused by frequent housing moves (PB1) and (CSO1). • Extent to which adequate provision is being made for asylum seeker and refugee children across all devolved public services (CSO1). CSO1 noted that any investigation would need to be broad, because of the interrelated nature of the problems that asylum seekers and refugees faced “I have seen the power of the Ombudsman’s own initiative reports, and I mean, she’s had huge impact. We’d very much welcome it. But it can’t pick just education, or health, or housing, because they are inextricably linked, all of them” (CSO1).
27 On 26 February 2025, NIPSO announced a proposal to launch an own initiative investigation in relation to social housing provided by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, including “what actions it takes to ensure the conditions of properties used for temporary accommodation are appropriate”. See: https://www.nipso.org.uk/ nipso/latest/ombudsman-proposes-own-initiative-investigation-housing-executive.
Final report of the of Ombudspersons and the Protection of Refugees and Asylum Seekers (OPRAS) project | 49
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software